D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?

[Crimson Longinus]

Like identified, the potential disagreement regarding background features relates to them requiring and assuming very specific sort of fiction. How will the people on a faraway continent, let alone in another dimension know of your folk hero? Will the commoners everywhere respect your noble, even in lands where there is no noble class or anything analogous to it? Even in France 1789?

Now one answer is that the GM simply should not introduce any fiction that would cause such a conflict, but I certainly understand why this doesn't sit well with a lot of people. For example I really am not comfortable with the idea that simply by one player choosing noble as their background we are now locked playing in a world where commoners showing deference to aristocrats is universal.

 

[pemerton]

I really am not comfortable with the idea that simply by one player choosing noble as their background we are now locked playing in a world where commoners showing deference to aristocrats is universal.

Then shouldn't there be a different background chosen?

You seem to think a DM ruling this way is an affront to the player or at least his creative choice.
Meanwhile the common place view would be to appreciate the setting and the table's fiction.

Who is "the table" in this context?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Upthread I posted this imagined example:



@clearstream said that the rules of 5e D&D require the GM to invoke the combat mechanics in these sorts of contexts:

And subsequently Maxperson posted the following example, which appears to entail the same thing:
But I take it that you (Bedrockgames) don't agree?

I think generally what he is saying is true. Mostly you expect that if you say I swing my sword, I will do so in the manner described in the PHB combat section. My point is simply that the combat system isn't absolute: the GM has final say. That doesn't mean the GM just declaring your attack misses and the Balor decapitates you would be a good use of rule zero (as me and others were saying it is largely there so the GM can adapt the mechanics to player declarations, ensure the system doesn't produce results inconsistent with what is established in the specifics of play or that are wildly unbelievable and to help the game match the desired aesthetics of the group in question. Just because rule zero exists that doesn't mean combat rules are meaningless. I think one of the key elements of how people judge a GM is how they use rule zero. No question, just as jerks exist in the world, there are jerk GMs out there who go on a power trip when they get behind the screen and they will make bad rule zero calls. And just as people with bad judgement exist in the world, there will be GMs who use rule zero poorly.

I don't think it is wise to structure play around fear of bad GM performance because the upshot of having someone who can step in and get the game to empower players in moments where they go beyond the rules, is worth that risk. I will also say, most of the bad GMing I encountered, especially bad use of things like rule zero, was when I was young: both because younger players and GMs are more prone to that sort of thing (it can take time to develop the gaming social skills necessary to be a good GM) and because I wasn't as good at figuring out which groups I gel with the best (something that also takes a bit of time to learn). And there are always those bad GMs who remain bad GMs from their early days to their later ones. I avoid gaming with people who play in a way I don't enjoy. The only time I bump into bad GMs as an adult is when I've done public gaming (where I think for a variety of reasons you are more likely to have mismatches and more likely to meet GMs who are just bad).

 

[FrogReaver]

Whose creativity would be stifled?

According to whom?

To me, the most natural reading of your post is that the answer to both questions is the GM. In which case, I don't see how you're setting up a strong argument that the structure of play is not "Mother may I"-inclined.

I mean, if a player chooses as their ability that they are a noble whom other nobles will recognise, then aren't they already positing that there is a fundamental respect in which nobility is not different in distant lands? That's a creative choice too. Why is it not worthy of respect?

In most d&d groups the players also want the fictional world to make sense.

In most d&d groups the players don’t expect or even desire their character choices to constrain the dm to create world where they will be useful.

If the player culture changed such that they expected and desired their character choices to constrain the DMs world building choices then I’m absolutely sure most 5e DMs would accommodate them.

So. to answer your question above - everyone’s creativity would be stifled. In 5e player creativity isn’t expressed by world building, it’s expressed by reacting to the world that is built.

 

[FrogReaver]

That invokes the attacking an incapacitated target rules. Then it wakes up if it isn't dead. Alternatively, if the PC is an actual assassin using the Assassinate ability, it invokes those rules. After initiative and surprise are determined of course, which are invoked by the combat initiated by the attack.

My scenario was that the DM was saying yes without invoking those rules. No attack roll, no potential for waking up, etc.

I probably wasn’t clear enough there.

 

[Cadence]

I don't think it is wise to structure play around fear of bad GM performance because the upshot of having someone who can step in and get the game to empower players in moments where they go beyond the rules, is worth that risk.

I wonder what the correlation is between worrying most about GMs or players abusing things and views on issues like railroading, MMI, DM authority, etc..

 

[James Gasik]

I get what you're saying, but how is this not a defined mechanic?

Position of Privilege​

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.​

If you need to secure an audience with a local noble, you can.

Except when I tried to use it in a game, and the DM said "well, I don't think this particular noble has ever heard of you, or would be inclined to grant you an audience."

 

[Bedrockgames]

I wonder what the correlation is between worrying most about GMs or players abusing things and views on issues like railroading, MMI, DM authority, etc..

I don’t know. I strongly dislike railroading.

 

[Cadence]

I don’t know. I strongly dislike railroading.

I wonder if the definitions differ from person to person based on that too though...

 

[FrogReaver]

I wonder if the definitions differ from person to person based on that too though...

I believe I would define railroading primarily as a feeling as well. Every railroading thread I’ve ever seen also has great disagreement about which examples constitute it. Though probably more agreement than this thread.